MISTER REES ESTABLISHMENT LTD. vs. TLG PROPERTIES GHANA LIMITED [2023]DLHC16359

Date	2023-01-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0774/2021
Citation No.	[2023]DLHC16359

HIS LORDSHIP K. A. GYIMAH

SEAN POKU FOR PLAINTIFF.

NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR DEFENDANT.

[2023]DLHC16359
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >MISTER REES ESTABLISHMENT
LTD. <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TLG PROPERTIES GHANA
LIMITED <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. LD/0774/2021&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
20TH&nbsp;&nbsp;JANUARY 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>SEAN
POKU FOR PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;Plaintiff’s
case<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the plaintiff’s case that it
acquired the land in dispute as a lease from the State acting through the then
chairman of the Lands Commission. The plaintiff asserts that on 24th
September 2010, it entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the
defendant for the purpose of the plaintiff conveying the land to the defendant
for the construction and completion of residential apartments called Rees
Condominium within a period of thirty months.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the case of the plaintiff that
per the terms of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, the consideration payable for
the agreement was divided into three parts. The initial deposit of
US$250,000.00 was to be paid upon execution of the agreement, an additional
amount of US$250,000.0 was to be paid within thirty days after the receipt of
the consent certificate by the plaintiff from the government to assign the land
to the defendant and upon completion of the project within the thirty months, the
allocation of five apartments to the plaintiff as final consideration. Per the
agreement, should the defendant fail to fulfil the final part of the
consideration, the plaintiff was entitled to the payment of the monthly rent
for each of the five apartments as agreed to be allotted to the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the case of the plaintiff that
after the defendant fulfilled the first two aspects of the consideration
payable, the plaintiff assigned the land, the subject matter of the agreement,
to the defendant in order to assist the defendant source funding for the
project. The plaintiff asserts that per the agreement, the defendant was to
have completed construction by 31st March 2013, the day the thirty
month period elapsed. The defendant has however failed to complete the project
and has therefore failed and or refused to fulfil the final aspect of the
consideration payable – the allocation of five of the apartments to the
plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the case of the plaintiff that it
has made numerous approaches to the defendant including letters from its
lawyers as to the delay in the execution of the project and the defendant’s
failure to fulfil the final aspect of the consideration payable but all to no
avail. It was only in 2021 that the defendant reached out to the plaintiff that
it was committed to completing the project but without giving the plaintiff any
timelines. The defendant has also failed to give the plaintiff reasons for the
delay as stipulated in the agreement and it has also failed to pay the
prevailing rent on five of the apartments to the plaintiff as stipulated in the
agreement.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the plaintiff’s case that by the
failure of the defendant to complete the project within the thirty months and
failing to pay the prevailing rent on each of the five apartments, the
defendant has failed to provide the full consideration for the agreement and
this renders the Sale and Purchase Agreement invalid and incapable of
enforcement. The plaintiff therefore claims the following reliefs against the
defendant:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:54.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-36.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">i.